Nikon 12-24 vs. Tokina seems to have been discussed a bit. Here is what I got out of everything I read:
The Tokina is a very good copy of the Nikon at 1/2 the price USD. Both suffer from a bit of CA, but only when wide open and the very shortest focal length. The CA is easily fixed automatically in Capture 4.3 or ACR
Do I have it right? If so, I will save the extra $400 and buy the Tokina.
I guess this is a matter of taste. Both are excellent lenses. Reselling value might be better for the Nikon but that is probably the only true advantage.
I am very satisfied with my Tokina, and I never suffered from any CA until now. There is some slight vignetting and barrel distortion at 12mm but nothing I cannot live with. For the rest (very) strong build, fixed length, IF, fast focus, f4, very heavy !, sharp, everything you need.
So if you have the money go for Nikon glass
Otherwise the Tokina is a fantastic replacement.
I have no tokina experience and I am definitely a nikon snob...
I also thought I really wouldn't use the 12-24 that much and I could get away with the tokina, but I kinda fell into some cash and splurged on the 12-24 nikon...
I couldn't be happier. I never compared them, and I can't tell you that the tokina is anything less than this lens, but I am so impressed... I shoot with it at f/4, and it seems fine to me, even in the corners. I have no problems with the quality of this lens at all... I love it in fact...
Also, I crop most pictures to 5x7 or 8x10 aspect ratios... Only sometimes do I print the full 4x6 ratio, so the corners get cropped off of so many pictures... I think the sharpness in those corners is somewhat overrated and it kind of adds to the pictures when the textures get stretched and distorted...
I haven't used the Tokina but I did happen to see this recent thread at photo.net on the same topic. The general sense seemed to be that while the Tokina is a decent value, the Nikon does offer better quality for the higher price. Whether it is worth the price to you, only you can answer.
My own experience is only with the Nikon, with which I am delighted.
I guess I've become a Nikon snob I've shot 'other' brands of lenses for years, and most do well, but I've consistently had the best results with Nikkor. the 12-24mm Nikkor is one of my favorites.
I'm gonna agree with the Nikon guys. The Nikon continues to impress me, it probably is a lens I use a little too much. That said, I've never used the Tokina, but in the past I've had some pretty bad luck with third party lenses (Sigma and Tamron). They may work great for the first couple years, but then you end up with a soft, loud, really expensive paper weight. I'd look at it as spending a little more for a lot more longevity.
Thanks guys - In the end I think I have to concure - I have slowly ended up with all Nikon Glass and am fully satisfied with it where I have always had some issue with every non Nikon and eventually traded or sold. It is just so tempting to save the bucks or should I say use them for printers or another flash or whatever.
I am looking to buy a wide angle zoom this week, so it was interesting to read this. The consensus is for the Nikon 12-24, but one of the other wide zooms I have seen is the Tamron 11-18mm. Does anyone know how that lines up? I know usually the glass is not as good, but does anyone have any thoughts pro or con on this one?
The 11-18 seems to have good optical corrections and is sharp. It is slow though at f4.5-5.6. There is a recent report on it in Pop Photo.
If money is no problem, go Nikon.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
New option.
Just got a Sigma 10-20mm and I'm very impressed.
I had a 12-24 Nikkor and returned it (soft wide open) but the 10-20 Sigma is a 'keeper'.
I have already sold stuff taken with it.
Gav
I've shot 'other' brands of lenses for years, and most do well, but I've consistently had the best results with Nikkor. the 12-24mm Nikkor is one of my favorites.
